Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
fact is
 currently, two individuals
born same day
one Northern Hemisphere AUTUMNAL SEASON TROPICAL Libra sun in Fall
one Southern Hemisphere SPRING SEASON TROPICAL Libra
IN CONTRAST
on that same day
Not specifying the Season
Sun is Sidereal Constellation of Libra regardless of Hemisphere :smile:
Click to expand...

Since the Astrological "clock of the sky" was developed in the Northern hemisphere, the clock face can be read correctly from the North, and what it means can be applied in the Southern hemisphere as well. No need for a clock to have two faces.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
On the contrary :smile:
for example
 SUMMER FLOODS SWAMP TOWNS IN EASTERN AUSTRALIA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-16889399/summer-floods-swamp-towns-in-eastern-australian
Click to expand...

Yet, rain in Australia is highly unpredictable, and can occur anytime during the year. Whereas the "overflowing basin" of the Constellation Aquarius was linked directly to the highly predictable, WINTER "Month of Rain" in Ancient Babylonia.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Michael said:
It depends what you mean by traditional. Predictive astrology is considered traditional, because it employs traditional meanings and techniques. The outers don't matter much, but can be used.

Unfortunately, traditional can also mean stubborn traditionalism. Without regard for anything else.

And yes, the oldest astrology, the traditional astrology was sidereal. Not tropical.
Click to expand...

Older isn't necessarily better.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Since the Astrological "clock of the sky" was developed in the Northern hemisphere
the clock face can be read correctly from the North
and what it means can be applied in the Southern hemisphere as well.
No need for a clock to have two faces.
Click to expand...

Astrological "clock of the sky" illustrates visible "Wandering stars"
on a background of visible "Fixed Stars" :smile:
and as such applies to both Northern and Southern Hemispheres
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Yet, rain in Australia is highly unpredictable, and can occur anytime during the year.
Whereas the "overflowing basin" of the Constellation Aquarius
was linked directly to the highly predictable, WINTER "Month of Rain"
in Ancient Babylonia.
Click to expand...
And at that time of year it is Wet season in the tropics including Australia :smile:
Also during Wet season in Australia tropical cyclones (hurricanes) cause flooding.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Michael said:

It isn't. You seem to have a solid case for your use of tropical.
My problem is with the so called traditional astrologers who don't get it.
Traditional is not just excluding the outers.
Click to expand...
Thread title
Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?
has been answered :smile:

and so
if your intention is to discuss a definition of what is or is not traditional
then
time to create a new thread discussion defining traditional astrology
according to various opinions
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Michael said:
There are plenty of traditional astrologers who use the outers. John Frawley and Deborah Houlding are some.
Click to expand...
That's just two astrologers and John Frawley is not a traditional astrologer :smile:
Deborah Houlding does not use the outers when practicing traditional techniques
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
Houlding uses the outers when doing natal chart delineation. John Frawley is a follower of John Lilly. He can't get any more traditional than that.

BTW, both are prominent traditional astrologers.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Michael said:
Houlding uses the outers when doing natal chart delineation. John Frawley is a follower of John Lilly. He can't get any more traditional than that.

BTW, both are prominent traditional astrologers.
Click to expand...
by the way
John Frawley is not a traditional astrologer :smile:
Frawley differentiates his practice
from Medieval, Renaissance, or Classical branches of Astrology.
He asserts that his practice is modern
but with deeper roots than those of modern astrology

 Deborah Houlding does not use outers for Traditional astrology
QUITE SIMPLY
modern outers are excluded from TABLES OF ESSENTIAL DIGNITY
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
Michael said:
It depends what you mean by traditional. Predictive astrology is considered traditional, because it employs traditional meanings and techniques. The outers don't matter much, but can be used.

Unfortunately, traditional can also mean stubborn traditionalism. Without regard for anything else.

And yes, the oldest astrology, the traditional astrology was sidereal. Not tropical.
Click to expand...

No michael, what we call traditional is what follows a tradition that comes from Hellenic times all the way through that time. And no, not all of it was sidereal.

Has little to do with what you have been posted.

All you have done for the last 3 pages is, post and repost the same "sidereal is better", without actually offering proof or statement, or an interpretation of why it should be better. The same for the outers, your only argument has been either a copy of what was said by waybread and others, or saying that some contemporary astrologer uses it.

As I said before, offer some evidence for your statements, otherwise you are only acting like a kid making claims without proof. Its best if you let the adults talk instead.
 
Last edited:
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
Michael said:
It isn't. You seem to have a solid case for your use of tropical. My problem is with the so called traditional astrologers who don't get it. Traditional is not just excluding the outers.
Click to expand...

It seems to me you have very little idea of how western astrology developed
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
Michael said:
While sidereal is universal.
Click to expand...

First of all, sidereal is quite controversial within sidereal schools itself, given there exists a huge number of calculations for the sidereal zodiac. So depending on what calculation is used, you end up with very different results.

It is true that Hellenic astrologers use some form of sidereal zodiac. On of the most iconic references comes from Valens book from a line that states:

"Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive"

Assuming the translation is correct, this is usually taken as proof that the zodiac Valens employed was sidereal. However depending on the sidereal system employed, the diference in the time of Valens was perhaps 1 or 2 degrees.

Now the problem is that the symbolical aspects of the Zodiac are dependant upon seasons, a symbolism lost with sidereal zodiac. Thus why western astrology developed around the tropical zodiac.

For example, something david alluded, the concept of an equinoctial sign (cardinal signs such as Aries and Libra) is defined by the turning of the seasons, something that only happens within the tropical zodiac, because in sidereal zodiac the definition should change through time.

All in all, both systems have controversies to their nature. Its just that different schools revolve around them.

There are arguments to both sides on why one would be better over the other, but I haven't seen you post one beyond the statement that one is better than the other.
 
M

muchacho

Well-known member
Dirius said:
The nodes analogy has little to do with what we are discussing. Just because you use points that are not celestial objects with light doesn't mean the concept of light is discarded. Otherwise you wouldn't use combustion in the first place.

The nodes have symbolical significance in astrology because of the Moon path in the ecliptic, also being the place connected to eclipses. Whether it is correct for vedic astrology to adds meaning equal to that of the planet, is a subject concerned for vedic astrologers. Doesn't remove the fact that they still also use light base technique.

Its a bad analogy to make some sort of response to the obvious implication that all forms of astrology pay attention to the concept of light.
Click to expand...
Well, since you want to make it all about combustion in order to back your theory, please explain Cazimi to me using your light theory.


Cazimi

Cazimi is a Medieval astrological term that is used to refer to planets that are so close to a conjunction with the Sun that they are “in the heart” of the Sun.
Cazimi is a Latin transliteration of the Arabic term kaṣmīmī, which means “as if in the the heart”. The Arabic term appears to be a translation of the Greek term egkardios (ἐγκάρδιος), which literally means “in the heart”.
The Greek term and the concept appear for the first time in the work of Rhetorius of Egypt, who lived sometime around the 6th or 7th century CE. Later the concept appears in Arabic in the work of Sahl ibn Bishr in the early 9th century. Eventually it started showing up in Medieval Latin works in the 12th and 13th centuries, such as for example in the work of Guido Bonatti.
The astrological significance of the concept is that it was thought to be an ameliorating and strengthening factor for planets.
In Traditional Western Astrology planets that get close to a conjunction with the Sun, especially within 15 degrees, are thought to be weakened because their their light is obscured or overpowered by the light of the Sun. Cazimi appears to have been introduced as an exception to that general rule, so that when a planet is within a specific range of the Sun it is no longer harmed.
There appears to have been some disagreement amongst some early Medieval sources about how close a planet must get to the Sun before it is considered to be “in the heart” or cazimi:

  • According to Rhetorius and Sahl a planet is considered to be “in the heart” as soon as it comes within one degree of a conjunction with the Sun.
  • According to al-Qabisi and Bonatti a planet is considered to be “in the heart” as soon as it comes within 16 minutes of a conjunction with the Sun.
It seems that the earlier authors defined the concept according to the wider value of one degree, whereas most of the later Medieval and Renaissance astrologers used the tighter value of 16 minutes.


http://theastrologydictionary.com/c/cazimi/
Click to expand...
 
Top